This week’s prompt is:
“This is a patriarchal truism that most people in our society want to deny. Whenever women thinkers, especially advocates of feminism, speak about the widespread problem of male violence, folks are eager to stand up and make the point that most men are not violent. They refuse to acknowledge that masses of boys and men have been programmed from birth on to believe that at some point they must be violent, whether psychologically or physically, to prove that they are men.”
― bell hooks, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love
There are fundamentally two conflicting and clashing schools of masculism in society.
One teaches that violence, strength, and destruction are paramount. That responding violently is the answer, and that most problems can be solved with brute force.
The other politely disagrees, and asserts that violence should always be the last possible resort, and every attempt should be made to resolve peacefully, and violence should be only utilized when all avenues have been exhausted. It champions patience, courage, knowledge, tactics, and empathy.
Both have plenty of examples in popular media. I’m sure anyone here can think of tommes of examples of both.
The difference is, almost always the movies in the former category must set up some form of unrealistic, incredibly violent opposing force to justify its own premise. They don’t see reason, they only understand violence! Thus the protagonist must Rio and tear and kill every last one if them.
Meanwhile the latter typically focuses on more “human” interactions. The protagonist is often much more relatable and real. He doesn’t want anyone to get hurt, and he wants peace and happiness.
Characters like Aang from AtLA, Spiderman, or Luffy from One Piece, all demonstrate that violence only is reserved for when it is the only remaining option, typically self defense or defending others who are weaker.
Meanwhile media like John Whick, Taken, Predator, or Game of Thrones position “unstoppable forces” as the antagonists. They cannot be reasoned with, they won’t even consider it. Only violence remains from the very start.
So one has to ask themselves if there are cases of glorifying violence in media, when the protagonist could have resolved the situation peacefully?
A bit off topic, but it always bothered me how conservatives clearly have a concept of gender beyond pure biology (being a real man, having certain social rituals required to become a real man, etc.) but just would not admit it. Like dude, who are you kidding?
That’s an interesting observation, you’re definitely on to something there.
I would argue that boys are programmed to believe that men are supposed to be martyrs, which leads to a sense of entitlement over their nonexistent sacrifice. Denial of that entitlement leads to anger, violence, etc.
While I think you are touching on something important with the sense of martyrdom, I very much disagree with the idea that the violent aspects of patriarchal masculinity are somehow a result of that.
I very much disagree with bell hooks assertion that men are programmed from birth to be violent.
She’s talking about gendered societal expectations, not biological essentialism.
In the first 30 seconds, Peterson both encourages men to be “competent and dangerous” and says criticizes the young men that commit mass shootings as weak. In the above passage, bell hooks reveals how contradictory that is and how the the need to be competent and dangerous leads to mass shootings. They’re the same side of the coin.
I don’t find Bell Hooks explanation satisfactory either.
Peterson is a jackass but regurgitation of some of the same superficial 90s feminism (which hasn’t actually helped the issue of violent young men) is also something to be critiqued.
This is a textbook example of “Men as a threat” and stereotyping, and is why a lot of boys and men feel lost. You can’t find your place in society if society rejects you as a threat.
People are, once again, portraying boys and men as a broken by design and pile on the blame rather than helping them grow.
Boys and men aren’t monsters programmed to strike, and they will naturally resent being called such.
You will also immediately lose them as a target audience, and shouldn’t be surprised that you’ve pushed them into the arms of toxic influencers.
It would be unthinkable to make such a sweeping statement about any other group today.
People are, once again, portraying boys and men as a broken by design and pile on the blame rather than helping them grow.
Really, it’s a condemnation of society for breaking boys and men. The passage preserves the opportunity for wholesomeness by having men reject the programs of violence.
And it’s just a case in point if men feel attacked by the passage with a superficial reading and then rush into the arms of toxic influencers who tell them they need to be violent.
I think you’ve seriously misunderstood the author’s intentions. She’s calling for sympathy for men. Specifically she’s trying to explain the violent nature of patriarchal masculinity as a result of the gendered expectations we place on men and boys. Think about expectations to protect a female partner in a mugging or similarly confrontational situation. Those are the sort of experiences that she’s referencing. The argument then is that because we place these situational requirements on even the most violence-averse men, we should have greater empathy for the fact that men as a whole have internalized this notion of violence as necessity in a lot of situations. My reason for posting it here was primarily so that folks could discuss their own experiences with these sorts of harmful gendered expectations.
Removed by mod
the feminists are contributing to this issue
Where do you think you are?
Please post suggestions for next week below
